Date:	Sat, 17 May 1997 09:05:12 -0400 (EDT)
From:	"Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
Reply-To:	"Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
To:	John Fremlin <dfremlin AT facstaff DOT wisc DOT edu>
cc:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: A few FS notions
In-Reply-To:	<YvQcz8ew4OeR092yn@facstaff.wisc.edu>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.3.95.970517085944.276B-100000@capslock.com>
Organization:	Total disorganization.
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Sat, 10 May 1997, John Fremlin wrote:

> "Mark Habersack" <grendel AT hoth DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl> typed:
> [snip]
> >> a "small" Linux version takes 15 MB.
> >Not true. Slackware 3.x has a *one floppy* version of Linux for you to try.
> 
> Where? Where? Gimme! Wonder of wonders! (Reading the Slackware FAQ
> it appears that one disk is only useful for "maintenance and
> installation", oh well).

A useable and useful Linux installation requires at least 60 megs
MINIMUM IMHO.  This doesn't leave much user filespace either.  A
realistic installation is a 200M partition of which there is
around 50 - 100 Megs of that 200 available for user files, etc.

As for Linux running off floppy disk, that is a joke.  The boot
disks have NO useful programs on them for doing day to day stuff,
only programs for setting up and installing linux on the HD.

> >> I want an OpenDos that is 100% MS-DOS (v6+) compatible, and beyond
> >> that I'm not going to fuss too much. Any added features are useful
> >> but not *absolutely* necessary.
> >
> >Hmm... That's not what it's all about. We want DOS to live on - for that we 
> >have to make it a modern operating system. And while maintaining a *certain* 
> >level of compatibility (the highest possible, of course) we have to sacrifice 
> >the features (or misfeatures) that are obstacles on our way.
> 
> Wonderful! I can't wait for a 32-bit DPMI (v1.0) OpenDOS version.

I agree.  This will be fantastic!

> A modern OS? What are you talking about? DOS is IMHO hardly
> material for a modern OS.

Also agreed, but nonetheless, there is a lot of software out
there for it, and DOS certainly hasn't choked its last breath
yet.
 
> I think OpenDOS should concentrate on a *customizable* OS - give
> people the a choice of many shells, filesystems etc. with
> networking capabilities.

In your previous message, you came very much across as being
totally against adding new filesystems capabilities to OpenDOS.
Please clarify your position on this as you sound unsure.


Mike A. Harris        |             http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris
Computer Consultant   |                  Coming soon: dynamic-IP-freedom...
My dynamic address: http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris/ip-address.html
Email: mharris at blackwidow.saultc.on.ca  <-- Spam proof address

Download OpenDOS, then: CDD C:\^DEL /ZS MSDOS.SYS IO.SYS \DOS\*.*

- Raw text -